2011-21098. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Adoption of Drum and Pail Coating Standards

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland (Maryland). This SIP revision includes amendments to the Code of Maryland (COMAR) 26.11.19.13, Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes, Drum and Pail Coating. Maryland's SIP revision meets the requirement to adopt Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for sources covered by EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings and will help Maryland attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

Written comments must be received on or before September 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0610 by one of the following methods:

A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

B. E-mail: [e-mail].

C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0610, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0610. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov,, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Irene Shandruk, [phone], or by e-mail at [e-mail].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On June 22, 2011, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted to EPA a SIP revision concerning the adoption of the drum and pail coating standards found in the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG.

I. Background

Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM), including RACT for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, states must revise their SIPs to include RACT for sources of VOC emissions covered by a CTG document issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area's date of attainment.

CTGs are intended to provide state and local air pollution control authorities information that should assist them in determining RACT for VOCs from various sources, including drum and pail coatings. In developing these CTGs, EPA, among other things, evaluated the sources of VOC emissions from this industry and the available control approaches for addressing these emissions, including the costs of such approaches. Based on available information and data, EPA provided recommendations for RACT for VOCs from drum and pail coatings.

In June 1978, EPA published a CTG for controlling VOC emissions from surface coating of miscellaneous metal and plastic products (EPA-450/2-78-015), which includes drum and pail coatings. This CTG discusses the nature of VOC emissions from this industry, available control technologies for addressing such emissions, the costs of available control options, and other items. EPA promulgated national standards of performance for new stationary sources New Source Performance Standards for miscellaneous metal and plastic products industry and EPA also published a national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for this industry.

In 2008, after conducting a review of currently existing state and local VOC emission reduction approaches for this industry, reviewing the 1978 CTG and the NESHAP for this industry, and taking into account the information that has become available since then, EPA developed a new CTG for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts, entitled Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-003).

The miscellaneous metal product and plastic parts surface coatings categories under section 183(e) of the CAA includes the coatings that are applied to the surfaces of a varied range of metal and plastic parts and products. Such parts or products are constructed either entirely or partially from metal or plastic. The VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal product and plastic parts surface coating processes result from the evaporation of the volatile components of the coatings and cleaning materials used in these operations.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

On June 22, 2011, MDE submitted to EPA a SIP revision (#11-04) concerning the adoption of the emission limits for drum and pail coatings, part of the EPA miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings CTG. EPA develops CTGs as guidance on control requirements for source categories. States can follow the CTGs or adopt more restrictive standards. Maryland has adopted EPA's CTG standards for drum and pail coating processes. These regulations are in COMAR 26.11.19, Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes. Specifically, this revision amends the existing regulation in Section 26.11.19.13 to include emission limits for drum and pail coatings (Table 1). A detailed summary of EPA's review of and rationale for proposing to approve this SIP revision may be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action which is available on line at http://www.regulations.gov,, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0610.

Table 1—Drum and Pail Coating Standards

Coating types	Pounds VOC/ gallon coating (minus water)	Kilogram VOC/liter coating (minus water)
New, Exterior	2.8	0.34
New, Interior	3.5	0.42
Reconditioned, Exterior	3.5	0.42
Reconditioned, Interior	4.2	0.50

III. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve Maryland's SIP revision for adoption of the CTG standards for drum and pail coatings. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule concerning Maryland's adoption of CTG standards for drum and pail coatings does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

• Environmental protection
• Air pollution control
• Ozone
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Volatile organic compounds

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: August 1, 2011.

W.C. Early,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.